Table Of Content

DOCUMENT RESUME FL 024 811 ED 414 729 Choi, Dong-Ik AUTHOR Binding Principle for Long-Distance Anaphors. TITLE PUB DATE 1997-00-00 16p.; For complete volume of working papers, see FL 024 807. NOTE Evaluative (142) Reports Journal Articles (080) PUB TYPE Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics; v22 n1 p57-71 1997 JOURNAL CIT MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Chinese; English; *Grammar; Italian; Japanese; Korean; DESCRIPTORS *Language Patterns; Language Research; *Linguistic Theory; Russian; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Uncommonly Taught Languages *Anaphora; *Binding Theory; Icelandic IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT An analysis of long-distance anaphora, a binding phenomenon in which reflexives find their antecedents outside their local domain, is presented, using data from English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Icelandic, and Italian. It is found that no approach deals with long-distance anaphors exclusively and elegantly. The binding domain parametrizing approach, allowing only two domains loosely, cannot deal with the variations of the binding domain language by language, and can not deal with examples that do not observe rigorous c-commanding requirement between anaphors and their antecedents. The governing-category parametrizing approach can not deal with a long-distance anaphor that is not c-commanded by its antecedent. The subject parametrizing approach and anaphor movement approach both have problems similar to that of the binding domain parametrizing approach. Two mechanisms should be included in any insightful approach to long-distance anaphors across languages: strict and precise parametrization according to language, and escape of the c-commanding requirements in certain constructions. Any semantic or thematic theory should intervene in the explanation of long-distance anaphors, because syntactic theory alone can not explain that substitution of a predicate can affect long-distance anaphora in certain contexts. Contains 16 references. (MSE) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS SEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) LONG-DISTANCE ANAPHORS BINDING PRINCIPLE FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Improvement Office of Educational Research and EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as organization received from the person or Dong-lk Choi originating it. Chung-Ang University Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. in this Points of view or opinions stated represent document do not necessarily anaphora, a Abstract: This paper deals with long-distance official OERI position or poky. reflexives find their binding phenomenon in which introduce domain. antecedents outside their local I the phenomenon: various syntactic approaches to Governing Binding-domain parametrizing approach, SUBJECT approach, parametrizing category Anaphor movement parametrizing approach and for the I show that they cannot fully account approach. suggest that semantic or long-distance anaphora. I taken to give a full thematic consideration are to be 4.4 anaphora. account for the long-distance 1. Introduction for anaphors as in (1) has Chomsky's (1981) binding principle A been challenged. category. (1) An anaphor is bound1 in its governing reflexives'2 in English and anaphors in some The so-called 'picture noun predicate constructions or constructions, such as psychological constraint of the principle. Long- passives,3 challenge the `c-command' challenge the 'binding-domain' distance anaphors in various languages that long-distance anaphors have constraint of the principle in the sense governing category. They also challenge their antecedents outside their the 'c-command' requirement. challenge of long-distance In this paper, I will deal with the Long-distance anaphors are found anaphors to the binding principle A. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and in East-Asian languages such as follows.4 also in Russian, Icelandic and Italian as BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 in Linguistics, Volume 22, Number 1, 1997 Kansas Working Papers 58 (2) a. Zhangsank renwei Lisii zhidao Wangwu; xihuan zijivyk. knows Wangwu likes Zhangsan thinks self Lisi `Zhangsan thinks Lisi knows that Wangwu likes himself.' -Chinese (Cole, Hermon & Sung:1990, 1)- Youngshiki-i b. Cheolsuk-nun coaha-nun-keot-ul cakiwk-lul Youngshik-NOM self-ACC Cheolsu-TOP like-ASP-COMP-ACC Youngsurka alkoitta-ko saengkakha-n-ta. Youngsu-NOM know-COMP think-ASP-DEC 'Cheolsu thinks that Youngsu knows that Youngshik likes himself.' -Korean- c. Johnrwa zibunwro nikunde iru Billrga omotte iru. to COMP think John-TOP Bill-NOM self-ACC hates 'John thinks that Bill hates himself.' -Japanese (Manzini & Wexler:1987, 419)- d. Professor/ poprosil assistentai chitat' svojjq doklad. Professor asked assistant self's report read 'The professor asked his assistant to read self's report.' -Russian (Yang:1983, 179)- e. Joni segir ao Maria/ elski 'Jon says that Maria loves(subjunctive) self.' -Icelandic (Manzini & Wexler:1987, 417)- f. Alice/ vide Mario; guardare sevi nello specchio. 'Alice saw Mario look at self in the mirror.' -Italian (Manzini & Wexler:1987, 416)- It can be said that there are two main streams in dealing with these examples of long-distance anaphora. The first one is concerned with the parameterization of the binding domain, the governing category, or SUBJECT. The second one is related to movement at LF. I will examine various proposals along these lines and suggest the most appropriate approach to explain the long-distance anaphora. 59 2. Binding-domain parametrizing approach explained by The phenomenon of long-distance binding can be principle. Since an eliminating 'governing category' from the binding either in its anaphor which has a long-distance usage is bound it is no longer governing category or outside its governing category, exist in the description of the necessary that a governing category should of a governing binding principle for the anaphor. This elimination interpreted as parametrizing category from the binding principle can be category] value. This line is the binding domain to have a [-governing for the explanation of taken by Hong (1985) and Lee (1983), especially (1986:18) introduces long-distance anaphora in Korean. O'Grady A as in (3). Hong's (1985) version of binding principle (3) An anaphor is bound. A which fits Korean Lee(1983:211) reformulates the binding condition data, as in (4). (4) An anaphor need not be bound in its governing category. effect if (4) is not These two binding principles seem to have the same unbound. interpreted as meaning that an anaphor can be in the above They can deal with all other long-distance anaphors long-distance anaphor. But they can not explain as well as the Korean the following examples. zijii bu zuo dui (5) Zhangsan; nayang Ii self not advantageous that-way do to Zhangsan himself no good.' 'That Zhangsan behaved in such a manner did -Chinese (Battistella:1989, 999)- sashil-i miweoha-n-ta-nun cakielul (6) Cheolsui-ka fact-NOM Cheolsu-NOM self-ACC dislike-ASP-DEC-ADJ nolla-ke ha-yet-ta. Youngshiktul Youngshik-ACC frighten-CAUSE-PAST-DEC 4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 60 Youngshik.' 'The fact that Cheolsu disliked himself frightened -Korean- (7) JOni segir ao Maria/ elskar 'Jon says that Maria loves self.' -Icelandic (Manzini & Wexler:1987, 417)- because the antecedent The Chinese sentence (5) violates principle (3) the sentence is Zhangsan does not c-command ziji. Nevertheless, problem. grammatical. The Korean anaphor caki in (6) has the same anaphor sig in (7) can not Principle (3) can not explain why the Icelandic relationship between the be bound by Jon in spite of the c-command plausible antecedent Jon and the anaphor sig. approach 3. Governing category parametrizing the governing Manzini & Wexler (1987:422- 423) parametrize category as in (8). (8) y is a governing category for a iff contains a and a governor for a and y is the minimal category that anaphoric, has a subject 13, a. can have a subject or, for a 134=a; or b. has an Intl; or c. has a Tense; or d. has a 'referential' Tense; or e. has a 'root' Tense; for a anaphoric, the subject 13', I3'*a, of -y , and of every if, category dominating a and not y, is accessible to a. in Chomsky (1981), Manzini & Wexler accept the definition of 'accessible' if and only if it c- whereby a category is accessible to an argument a violating the 1- commands a and it can be coindexed with a without Condition, no element can within-i Condition. According to the i-within-i As for the subject- be contained in a category bearing the same index. & Wexler introduce control property of long-distance anaphors, Manzini 5 61 revised binding the concept of 'proper antecedent' and propose a principle A as in (9). (9) An anaphor is bound in its governing category by a proper antecedent. subject or else any A proper antecedent for a is defined to be either a element at all. The value of the Let's apply this binding principle to the examples. Tense. All the subjects of these governing category in (2a)-(2c) is 'root' So the governing category is sentences are accessible to the anaphors. for these anaphors are the root sentence. The proper antecedents c-commanding subjects in the subjects. The anaphors are bound by any In the Russian (9) predicts. root sentence as the binding principle is Tense. The root example (2d), the value of the governing category anaphor svoj is the governing sentence with accessible subjects to the predicts that svoj can be bound category. The binding principle correctly the matrix subject professor. by the embedded subject assistants or sig in (2e) and Italian se Principle (9) also correctly predicts that Icelandic matrix subjects. in (2f) are bound by their embedded subjects or In (7), the governing category Let's consider the examples (5)-(7). but not the root for Icelandic anaphor sig is the embedded sentence, sentence is the minimal sentence as in (2e) because the embedded and the 'referential' Tense for category that contains sig, its governor, embedded subject as Icelandic anaphor. Sig is bound only by the have a governing predicted. The Korean anaphor caki in (6) does not the minimal category that category. Before 'accessibility' is considered, the 'root' Tense is obviously the contains caki, the governor for caki, and requirement does not hold in a root root sentence. But the 'accessibility' (Cheolsu-ka caki-lul miweoha-n-ta-nun sentence. The matrix subject coindexaion of caki and sashil-I is not accessible to caki because the caki; -lul miweoha-n-fa -nun the subject, represented as [Cheolsu -ka whereas the embedded subject sashil-1]; violates the i-within-i Condition, caki. Therefore, caki does of the root sentence Cheolsu is accessible to correctly predicted to pick its not have a governing category and is (6) can be Cheolsu or antecedents freely. The antecedent of caki in Youngshik. anaphoric Principle (9), however, faces difficulty in explaining the anaphor ziji in (5) is relation in (5). The governing category for Chinese BEST COPY AVAILABLE 62 the root sentence because there is no 'accessibility' problem in this case. Principle (9) can not predict that ziji refers to Zhangsan because Zhangsan in the embedded sentence can not c-command ziji in the ,- matrix sentence. 4. SUBJECT parametrizing approach Progovac (1992) proposes what she calls 'relativized SUBJECT' analysis to explain long-distance anaphors. Her approach is regarded Agr or a subject, [NP, NP] as the parameterization of SUBJECT as either for long-distance or (NP, IP]. Progovac's (1992:672) principle anaphors is composed of the following two parts: (10) An Xo reflexive must be bound to Agr, as the only salient (c- commanding) X0 category. (11) Agr is the only SUBJECT for X0 reflexives. She assumes that Chinese has syntactic Agr, but that its morphological emptiness makes it anaphoric, or dependent on coindexation with higher Agr. She argues that this assumption provides of ziji and a persuasive explanation for the subject-oriented property blocking effects whereby long-distance binding is blocked if a different languages, (2a)-(2c) person Agr intervenes. The examples of East-Asian If Agr in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean is can be explained in this way. anaphoric and bound to a higher Agr, the SUBJECT is the whole Agr chain and the domain extends up to the whole sentence, which includes the head of the chain. The anaphors in (2a)-(2c) are bound by either of the Agr's in each sentence respectively, and then, by transitivity, they can be bound by either of the subjects in each sentence. Progovac (1992:677) deals with long-distance anaphora in subjunctives. She argues that the extension of the binding domain in subjunctives is achieved through the LF transparency ('invisibility') of recoverable functional categories (e.g., INFL and COMP). Subjunctive INFL which does not host independent Tense is recoverable and transparent at LF. Therefore, Agr in subjunctives can not count as a SUBJECT. In that case, the matrix indicative Agr functions as a SUBJECT. But let's compare (2e) with (12). 7 63 self-; guardato (12) Alice/ pensava the Mario; avesse looked at self thought that Mario had (subjunctive) 'Alice nello specchio. in the mirror.' -Italian (Manzini & Wexler:1987, 416)- SUBJECT can not deal The proposal that Agr in subjunctives is not a Agr in subjunctive In (12) for (2e). with (12), even though it can account , domain should be confined to should be a SUBJECT and the binding the embedded sentence. (5) and (6) in which the c- This approach can not account for and anaphors is not commanding relation between antecedents such a structural relation. observed, because this approach assumes 5. Anaphor movement approach Battistella's (1989) approach The Cole. Hermon & Sung's (1990) and is quite different from preceding anaphor movement approach, which by Cole, Hermon & Sung (1990) and elaborated ones, is proposed by fact that reflexives may be Battistella (1989). They account for the languages like Chinese, indefinitely far from their antecedents in the entirely local theory of Japanese and Korean, by a unified and applies to English as well. What antecedents for bound anaphors, which binding to successive cyclic is most distinguishing is that they relate similar to that of wh-movement. The movement at LF, whose process is this property of INFL. In possibility of long-distance reflexives is due to reflexives, INFL is lexical and a languages which allow long-distance INFL other languages, one of which is English, proper governor, while in If INFL is lexical, VP is L-marked is functional and not a proper governor. The anaphor movement to INFL crosses no by INFL and is not a barrier. is properly governed by INFL, which barrier and the trace of the anaphor orientation or subject-control results in no ECP violation.5 The subject results from the process of INFL-to- property of long-distance anaphors of a clause c-commands (NFL, INFL movement. Since only the subject antecedent for the long-distance the subject is the only possible anaphors. INFL approach. Battistella (1989) elaborates this movement to The INFL heading the nominal She accounts for the tricky example (5). index from its subject Zhangsani subject clause receives its agreement BEST COPY AVAILABLE 8 64 S follows. and then, the percolation of agreement features from INFL to Ziji in the INFL of the matrix clause is c-commanded by the nominal subject and can be coindexed with this nominal subject. This means that Since antecedenthood is a relation between zip receives index 1. indices, Zhangsani can be the antecedent of zijii This approach still can not account for (6), another example in addition to (5), in which the relation between antecedents and anaphors does not satisfy the c- commanding requirement. A serious problem with this approach is that it can not be extended Japanese to the long-distance anaphora different from that of Chinese, and Korean. The essential correlation that is assumed in Cole, Hermon & Sung (1990) and Battistella (1989) is that INFL in languages which If it is allow long-distance anaphors is lexical and a proper governor. true, INFL in Russian, Icelandic and Italian is lexical and a proper long-distance anaphors as in governor because these languages show (2d)-(2f). Therefore, this approach can not explain some complex (7), (12) sentences in which long-distance anaphora is not allowed, as in predicts and in the following example (13), because the approach always the binding domain is the whole sentence so far as INFL is lexical. svojefru c'to Volodja; Ijubit (13) Vanjai znaet z'en-u. self's-ACC wife-ACC Vanja knows that Volodja loves 'Vanja knows that Volodja loves self's wife.' -Russian (Progovac:1992, 674)- Yang's (1991) approach Yang (1991) also takes an anaphor movement approach. But he rejects Cole, Hermon & Sung's assumption that only so-called 'non-phrasal' anaphors may undergo X0 movement, wherease only so-called 'phrasal' anaphors may undergo XP-movement. Yang (1991:428) claims that 'non-phrasal' anaphors like Korean caki have properties of XP's as well as heads and that this dual property of caki subject- can explain the cases of non-subject-orientation as well as If Korean anaphor caki as XP is assumed to undergo oriented anaphora. If it adjoins to VP, it is OR (Quantifier Raising), it can adjoin to VP or IP. licensed by the object in terms of the adjacent government. On the other hand, if it adjoins to IP, it is licensed by the subject. This means that this approach can deal with the tricky Korean example (6) which can be explained only by Manzini & Wexler (1987), among the other If caki in (6) first adjoins to IP in the embedded sentence, it approaches. is licensed by the embedded subject Cheolsu, that is, the antecedent of caki is Cheolsu. If it moves further and adjoins to VP in the matrix sentence, it is licensed by the matrix object Youngshik. Chinese 9 65 explained, regardless of whether example (5), however, can not be XP movement or X° movement. Chinese anaphor is assumed to undergo the anaphor ziji with the This movement approach can not associate is the matrix object and antecedent Zhangsan in (5) because ziji in (5) Zhangsan is the embedded subject. feature percolation Yang (1991:415) proposes the principle of its adjoined INFL as in (14). between the index feature of an anaphor and induces feature percolation. (14) An agreement-sensitive element assumed to be agreement- If Korean caki and Japanese zibun are not to the matrix INFL without sensitive elements, they are free to move Korean example (2b) and inducing percolation and feature conflict. with in this way. Japanese example (2c) can be dealt (1991:415) points out, The problem of this approach is, as Yang agreement-sensitivity which is the that there is no explicit criterion for Yang assumes that English 'phrasal' essence of this approach. elements whereas the anaphors like himself, are agreement-sensitive But the 'phrasal' or 'non- Korean 'non-phrasal' anaphor caki is not. languages does not decide phrasal' distinction between anaphors in not. For example, whether a given anaphor is agreement-sensitive or assumed to be an agreement- Chinese ziji, though it is 'non-phrasal', is phi-features.6 sensitive element with respect to example (12) under the This approach can not deal with the Italian Italian is an agreement-sensitive assumption that [+indicative INFL] in (12), if Italian anaphor se has the element, like Progovac's (1992). In is no feature conflict because index of the embedded subject Mario, there agreement-sensitive element. [ +subjunctive] INFL is not regarded as an of the matrix subject Alice, no Even if Italian anaphor se has the index feature of se which percolates feature conflict occurs because the index that the INFL receives from the matrix to the matrix INFL is the same one But this prediction is wrong. As subject through SPEC-Head Agreement. matrix subject and the (12) shows, the coindexation between the anaphor is not allowed. 0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE